The BCS conference commissioners and Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick said that “they made progress Wednesday on formulating college football's future postseason model, but emphasized the final decisions will come from school presidents who will consider multiple options,” according to Adam Rittenberg of ESPN.com. The meeting produced “no definitive conclusions on playoff structure, access and location of games, although a four-team model continues to receive the most attention.” The commissioners “will report to their presidents before meeting again June 19-20 in Chicago.” The BCS presidential oversight committee “meets June 26 in Washington” (ESPN.com, 6/13). USA TODAY’s Steve Wieberg writes "no go-ahead came” yesterday after the commissioners and Swarbrick met “for seven hours.” But ACC Commissioner John Swofford said, "I think there's a focus, as there has been, on a four-team playoff and trying to find a consensus as to the best way that can work, that our conferences can be comfortable with, that our presidents can consider." But a final decision on the postseason “will be left to the 12 university CEOs who sit on presidential oversight committee” and meet in DC later this month. Sources said that Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott “restated their leagues' public stance in favor of a more conservative plus-one format.” It would “stage a No. 1-vs.-2 title game after the bowls, and would be far less disruptive to the Big Ten's and Pac-12's longtime partnership" with the Rose Bowl. Their position “isn’t seen as entrenched,” as one source said that the group “actually is very close to consensus on a four-team playoff” (USA TODAY, 6/14).
SLOWLY BUT SURELY: In Chicago, Shannon Ryan wrote the group "described their positions as growing ever closer.” SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said, “We are reaching consensus slowly but surely on several issues.” Swofford added, “There's a focus, as there has been, on a four-team playoff and trying to find a consensus as to the best way that can work, that our conferences can be comfortable with, that our presidents can consider.” The commissioners “discussed elements of playoff implementation such as how teams will be selected and where games will be played but declined to provide information on their ideas” (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 6/14). Scott said the university presidents will “have options -- plural” to consider when they meet in a couple of weeks (AP, 6/13). In Chicago, Brian Hamilton writes this is “another lurch forward in BCS talks, another confirmation of forthcoming independence days.” The BCS talks “likely will end with a four-team playoff” (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 6/14).
MONEY TALKS: SI.com’s Andy Staples wrote the commissioners “talked money on Wednesday, as in how they'll split the revenue from the new postseason system.” They would not “even broach the thorny topic of revenue sharing if they didn't believe they could reach a consensus on the other details.” Staples wrote “no single league can block the playoff steamroller.” One league “will get shamed into line,” and two leagues “might be able to stem the tide, but that's unlikely” (SI.com, 6/13). In Austin, Kirk Bohls writes several criteria “are absolutely essential to this process getting off the ground.” Bohls: “Transparency. Inclusion. …The consumer has to know how the new system of picking the four teams works. There can be no man behind the curtain. Or even worse, a computer behind the curtain” (AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, 6/14).
BCS PRESIDENTIAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
|Notre Dame||John Jenkins|
|Northern Illinois||John Peters|
|Western Kentucky||Gary Ransdell|
|Virginia Tech||Charles Steger|
|Fresno State||John Welty|